The decision to do what they did is mind boggling.
I can only assume they were caught up in the atmosphere of unknown that was COVID... and somehow decided that their actions made sense.
It was poor judgment executed on a huge scale that potentially puts the whole Internet Archive at risk.
I would love to have been able to hear what the discussions were surrounding that decision and if / how they dealt with the obvious objection of "hey guys this is illegal".
Everything the Internet Archive does is legally sketchy. The wayback machine making copies of web sites available without a prior agreement with the copyright owners? Their game and video archives?
Edit: I get it, it's an unpopular opinion. But as far as I can see, it's true: IA operates on a very broad definition of fair use that would be difficult to support legally. You can't have it both ways.
I just donated $100 to IA and refrained from making a $200 order for new books.
This whole copyright case is a whole load of bollocks. Hope that Internet Archive will fend that off, because otherwise it would be a very tragic loss for the internet.
I do too, but my modest annual donations will stop. My support for the organization is about it's mission to preserve material that has lasting importance, not to contribute to a legal make-work program.
Why the Internet Archive would risk the entire org in this way is mind boggling. I wonder who on the board or in charge is falling on the sword, which needs to happen.
To be more precise, it is returning to Controlled Digital Lending https://controlleddigitallending.org, where it lends out one digital copy for each physical copy it has purchased or acquired. CDL is unlikely to face major legal challenges, because it's effectively lending the digital copies exactly as if they were print copies.
The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library program, where the Internet Archive was simultaneously lending out an unlimited number of digital copies of a book, regardless of whether it only possessed one physical copy.
This is (on its face) a violation of copyright. Under the first-sale doctrine, you're free to lend out a copy you've purchased. But you aren't free to make unlimited copies of a copy you've purchased and lend them out.
This is very unfortunate. I agree they probably infringed on copyright, but I also think they were in the right. If we respected the law in this emergency when none of our social systems could cope with unprecedented crisis, the human costs would mount even higher.
The publishers will continue to do what's in their interest (immorally imo), but what they could have done instead was jump onboard and say yes these books will be offered for the duration of the crisis.
Of course, I feel that publishing should be at least partially publicly funded so that copyright wouldn't be a concern and we could read everything for free above production cost and authors would get paid. However, the private system should have at least tried to legitimize itself by providing necessary services for the public instead of continuing to deprive people of what they need out of concern for their own profits.
IA could have easily coordinated with publishers beforehand and got them on board as a good publicity opportunity. Instead they did it on their own, very clearly violating the copyrights.
Like it or not, copyright holders can set whatever terms they want on the material they own. That includes making choices that you think are dumb or bad for business. It’s not the job of copyright to ensure companies serve the public good or even do things that keep them in business. That’s up to the market.
People don't support the copyright status quo, people think it was stupid to risk a vital resource in an unlikely-to-be-won fight. It was delusional and irresponsible.
I do not want everything else the archive preserves (including, full disclosure, reams of pages I scanned myself) to be lost because they decided to pick a fight they couldn't win.
I think most people agree that creators should be paid. It’s the greed of big publishing companies (especially in research) that drive people up a wall with anger.
I can't say I'm surprised; it was a lot of legal risk. But also, not a fan of copyright as-is. It's a real mickey mouse game, and it's not authors walking away with the fat paychecks.
I wonder if something like this could assist the archive. As legal costs mounts, they could scatter their library and make it all free forever - not even those lending limits with Controlled Digital Lending will remain.
Might make the publishers come to a truce, since they must fund the lawsuit as there is no pot of gold in the archives to give a contingency law firm to take it on. Get China on board for the good it's billions of citizens!!
Unfortunately, I think this is the right decision. Books can and will be archived by publishers; The Internet Archive is most important as a repository of culture that won't be preserved any other way.
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
I can only assume they were caught up in the atmosphere of unknown that was COVID... and somehow decided that their actions made sense.
It was poor judgment executed on a huge scale that potentially puts the whole Internet Archive at risk.
I would love to have been able to hear what the discussions were surrounding that decision and if / how they dealt with the obvious objection of "hey guys this is illegal".
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxBarraclough|5 years ago|reply
I figured the same was true for Google Books, but that's still around.
[+] [-] mcguire|5 years ago|reply
Edit: I get it, it's an unpopular opinion. But as far as I can see, it's true: IA operates on a very broad definition of fair use that would be difficult to support legally. You can't have it both ways.
I just donated $100 to IA and refrained from making a $200 order for new books.
[+] [-] katktv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|5 years ago|reply
Why the Internet Archive would risk the entire org in this way is mind boggling. I wonder who on the board or in charge is falling on the sword, which needs to happen.
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
It seems like their actions were illegal in the most obvious way. I don't think there's much grey area here.
[+] [-] ikeboy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jawns|5 years ago|reply
The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library program, where the Internet Archive was simultaneously lending out an unlimited number of digital copies of a book, regardless of whether it only possessed one physical copy.
This is (on its face) a violation of copyright. Under the first-sale doctrine, you're free to lend out a copy you've purchased. But you aren't free to make unlimited copies of a copy you've purchased and lend them out.
[+] [-] FlyMoreRockets|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehjoker|5 years ago|reply
The publishers will continue to do what's in their interest (immorally imo), but what they could have done instead was jump onboard and say yes these books will be offered for the duration of the crisis.
Of course, I feel that publishing should be at least partially publicly funded so that copyright wouldn't be a concern and we could read everything for free above production cost and authors would get paid. However, the private system should have at least tried to legitimize itself by providing necessary services for the public instead of continuing to deprive people of what they need out of concern for their own profits.
[+] [-] orev|5 years ago|reply
Like it or not, copyright holders can set whatever terms they want on the material they own. That includes making choices that you think are dumb or bad for business. It’s not the job of copyright to ensure companies serve the public good or even do things that keep them in business. That’s up to the market.
[+] [-] cloudc0de|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exolymph|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EamonnMR|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samizdis|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182
[+] [-] aurizon|5 years ago|reply
https://sci-hub.tw/
[+] [-] sp332|5 years ago|reply
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/h02jl4/lets_sa...
[+] [-] Spooky23|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EamonnMR|5 years ago|reply